A Khalil1,2, I Beune3, K Hecher4, K Wynia5, W Ganzevoort6, K Reed7, L Lewi8,9, D Oepkes10, E Gratacos11, B Thilaganathan1,2, S J Gordijn3. 1. Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of London, London, UK. 2. Vascular Biology Research Centre, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Twin and Multiple Births Association (TAMBA), UK. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU, Leuven, Belgium. 9. Department of Development and Regeneration, KU, Leuven, Belgium. 10. Division of Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 11. Fetal Medicine Unit and Department of Obstetrics, Hospital Clinic-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Twin pregnancy complicated by selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) is associated with increased perinatal mortality and morbidity. Inconsistencies in the diagnostic criteria for sFGR employed in existing studies hinder the ability to compare or combine their findings. It is therefore challenging to establish robust evidence-based management or monitoring pathways for these pregnancies. The main aim of this study was to determine, by expert consensus using a Delphi procedure, the key diagnostic features of and the essential reporting parameters in sFGR. METHODS: A Delphi process was conducted among an international panel of experts in sFGR in twin pregnancy. Panel members were provided with a list of literature-based parameters for diagnosing sFGR and were asked to rate their importance on a five-point Likert scale. Parameters were described as solitary (sufficient to diagnose sFGR, even if all other parameters are normal) or contributory (those that require other abnormal parameter(s) to be present for the diagnosis of sFGR). Consensus was sought to determine the cut-off values for accepted parameters, as well as parameters used in the monitoring, management and assessment of outcome of twin pregnancy complicated by sFGR. The questions were presented in two separate categories according to chorionicity. RESULTS: A total of 72 experts were approached, of whom 60 agreed to participate and entered the first round; 48 (80%) completed all four rounds. For the definition of sFGR irrespective of chorionicity, one solitary parameter (estimated fetal weight (EFW) of one twin < 3rd centile) was agreed. For monochorionic twin pregnancy, at least two out of four contributory parameters (EFW of one twin < 10th centile, abdominal circumference of one twin < 10th centile, EFW discordance of ≥ 25%, and umbilical artery pulsatility index of the smaller twin > 95th centile) were agreed. For sFGR in dichorionic twin pregnancy, at least two out of three contributory parameters (EFW of one twin < 10th centile, EFW discordance of ≥ 25%, and umbilical artery pulsatility index of the smaller twin > 95th centile) were agreed. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus-based diagnostic features of sFGR in both monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies, as well as cut-off values for the parameters involved, were agreed upon by a panel of experts. Future studies are needed to validate these diagnostic features before they can be used in clinical trials of interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Twin pregnancy complicated by selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) is associated with increased perinatal mortality and morbidity. Inconsistencies in the diagnostic criteria for sFGR employed in existing studies hinder the ability to compare or combine their findings. It is therefore challenging to establish robust evidence-based management or monitoring pathways for these pregnancies. The main aim of this study was to determine, by expert consensus using a Delphi procedure, the key diagnostic features of and the essential reporting parameters in sFGR. METHODS: A Delphi process was conducted among an international panel of experts in sFGR in twin pregnancy. Panel members were provided with a list of literature-based parameters for diagnosing sFGR and were asked to rate their importance on a five-point Likert scale. Parameters were described as solitary (sufficient to diagnose sFGR, even if all other parameters are normal) or contributory (those that require other abnormal parameter(s) to be present for the diagnosis of sFGR). Consensus was sought to determine the cut-off values for accepted parameters, as well as parameters used in the monitoring, management and assessment of outcome of twin pregnancy complicated by sFGR. The questions were presented in two separate categories according to chorionicity. RESULTS: A total of 72 experts were approached, of whom 60 agreed to participate and entered the first round; 48 (80%) completed all four rounds. For the definition of sFGR irrespective of chorionicity, one solitary parameter (estimated fetal weight (EFW) of one twin < 3rd centile) was agreed. For monochorionic twin pregnancy, at least two out of four contributory parameters (EFW of one twin < 10th centile, abdominal circumference of one twin < 10th centile, EFW discordance of ≥ 25%, and umbilical artery pulsatility index of the smaller twin > 95th centile) were agreed. For sFGR in dichorionic twin pregnancy, at least two out of three contributory parameters (EFW of one twin < 10th centile, EFW discordance of ≥ 25%, and umbilical artery pulsatility index of the smaller twin > 95th centile) were agreed. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus-based diagnostic features of sFGR in both monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies, as well as cut-off values for the parameters involved, were agreed upon by a panel of experts. Future studies are needed to validate these diagnostic features before they can be used in clinical trials of interventions.
Authors: Sophie G Groene; Jip A Spekman; Arjan B Te Pas; Bastiaan T Heijmans; Monique C Haak; Jeanine M M van Klink; Arno A W Roest; Enrico Lopriore Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-01-29
Authors: Manon Gijtenbeek; Sanne J Eschbach; Johanna M Middeldorp; Frans J C M Klumper; Femke Slaghekke; Dick Oepkes; Monique C Haak Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.242
Authors: Jelmer R Prins; Floor Holvast; Janneke van 't Hooft; Arend F Bos; Jan Willem Ganzevoort; Sicco A Scherjon; Sarah A Robertson; Sanne J Gordijn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Viola Seravalli; Lorenzo Maoloni; Lucia Pasquini; Sara Bolzonella; Giovanni Sisti; Felice Petraglia; Mariarosaria Di Tommaso Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240